This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
You may be interested in this. Peter jackson ( talk) 18:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
[1] My guess is 5 to 10% have that problem in the general population. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 15:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Allow me to put on my professional hat for just a moment. Everyone underestimates the complexity of the human psyche. We have certain biological traits that persist because they are effective traits for preserving the lives of individuals, and certain biological traits that persist because they are effective for advancing the interests of the social group, and layers of cognitive learning that balance, generalize, and integrate the raw material of those biological traits. What happens on wikipedia (on any internet site, actually), is that the balance is changed: we lose the immediacy of non-verbal feedback, so social needs become become less salient and the mind naturally emphasizes the needs of the self. In fact, the only place where there is any 'social' cohesion on wikipedia is around issues of legitimacy and scholarly authority, and so the breakdown we consistently see on project - individuals fighting to express their individual perspectives, cliques gathering around sources and policy statements with an almost religious dogmatism, intense ego involvement and the concomitant fight-to-the-death mentality - these are natural occurrences of minds that have lost track of part of their expected environment. The internet 'primitivizes' people, so that even people who (I assume) are perfectly reasonable and moral individuals in their daily lives can easily turn into ravening trolls. None of the idiotic disputes we have on project would be possible in the real world; sheer shame would prevent half of the arguments that are made from ever being made, and rationality (backed up by the need to have to look each other in the eye) would take care of the rest. But shame is a biological condition that inheres to social contexts, and rationality is a tool designed to suppress individual urges in favor of higher social purposes, and with the loss of a salient social environment neither applies. or better put, one has to put the effort in to assuming a non-visible social environment otherwise shame and rationality are rendered meaningless. Few people on project are aware that they need to make the assumption consciously, and fewer still are capable of doing it easily without the immediacy of social feedback.
Why do you think I inspire such intense anger from people I confront? It's because I consciously and deliberately invoke a social context that's otherwise absent on-project, and thus trigger all sorts of social responses that people have become unaccustomed to (with consequent emotional volatility). Effectively I smack right into any left-over, unresolved psychosocial issue ( See Erikson's stages 1-4) a given editor has; unresolved issues that are normally masked by higher social cognition in the real world, but which come out here because the salience of the social world has receded.
It's actually a very interesting occurrence, one which I would normally love to study. It's not one I particularly like living, however.
I'm just being clear about this: I don't think the problem is insoluble, but it's not something that's going to be immediately resolved by an appeal to rationality and common sense. somehow we need to build a new social context in which normal social controls exist, and then the situation will right itself. It's just a question of how that can be accomplished. -- Ludwigs2 16:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
... individuals fighting to express their individual perspectives, cliques gathering around sources and policy statements with an almost religious dogmatism, intense ego involvement and the concomitant fight-to-the-death mentality...
I envisage both teams working simultaneously on their statement, honing and revising in response to the others' statement as it evolves, until both teams are satisfied their case is as solid as it can be, at which point we take them to a widely advertised RfC. I'm inclined to at least begin the RfC as a simple unstructured discussion, and follow with... not sure; possibly another revision of the case for and against, possibly a !vote, as you might after a formal debate. I think this model may have merit and, since it was proposed by someone mostly arguing for the status quo, there's a chance editors on both sides of this "debate" may be willing to give it a try. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 06:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Once it's clear no new arguments are being put forward here by the same handful of editors for and against, then I'd like to see proponents and opponents of change compose a succinct statement of the case for and another of the case against, and lead the new RfC with those statements (as proposed here by AerobicFox).
Guys, with no snide remarks, and nothing intended as directed at either of you, I hope you don't mind if I make one little observation. There is a third category. There are people who are highly (or to some decent degree) against offending others, but understand that the only way to come as close as possible to creating an accurate encyclopedia means people (often including themselves) will be offended by something they find there. I've fought against removing things that offend me for that very reason. History has become a jumbled mess of half-nonsense over the centuries, with entire classes of historians trying to make the records more accurate and remove candy-coating and biases inserted because of compromises to prevent offense. I hate offending anyone. But I understand the need to not consider it in making an encyclopedia (which, btw, is vastly different from those few who seem to enjoy offending others). Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/ CN 03:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
That is indeed close - though I suspect, in the case of images of Muhammad, you will find the exact opposite effect. The number of Muslims affected here is very minor. The number of editors here who are aware of any such "controversy" here is very minor. As a for instance, many people have (erroneously) pointed out that we are offending billions of Muslims. Demographics are available for Wikipedia, and the true amount of Muslims who read Wikipedia is staggeringly low. Before you think I'm going in a certain direction with this, let me clarify. I'm not passing judgement on how many people are a valid number to offend or ignore. My point is (a) I agree with your wording but (b) I believe that, on Wikipedia, the results will not be what you suspect because of the small number of people who are of the Islamic faith or even know anything about it. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/ CN 19:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Would you mind concisely summarising what you think the image use problem is here? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 09:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. Thryduulf ( talk) 19:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
It's up to you, of course, but I thought you agreed to stay away from Talk:Muhammad/images. It looked to me like they were doing fine there without you or me. It looked like they were staggering towards a reasonable consensus. I fear that your engagement there may derail that process. I may be wrong. But would you consider stepping back for a while longer and seeing what happens? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 16:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot ( talk) 14:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
A while back you engaged with Martin Hogbin about the way WP arguments are handled. You made the statement that "The nice thing about consensus systems for Wikipedia is that it places power where it ought to be for an encyclopedia - on reason and informative sources." Of course, I am dragging this remark out of context. I just wonder if it actually expresses your opinion about how WP works, or instead, if it is a statement about how a consensus system is supposed to work in principle?
My personal experience is that the decision process on WP sometimes works when a few editors on a Talk page can come to terms over subject matter (a rare event). If that does not happen, and recourse is made to ANI or to ArbCom, or perhaps a strolling Administrator decides to settle matters themselves, then the result is entirely arbitrary and the actions taken will have no necessary relation to the problem or its resolution. Any connection to fact or reason becomes accidental. Brews ohare ( talk) 14:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd add to this a conjecture that a contributing factor to the malaise is that Administrators are presently immune to any consequences to their actions, except from other Administrators. This ingrown community that rules with impunity for life has no incentive to improve the content or conduct of affairs on WP. Their motivations are a subject for speculation. Brews ohare ( talk) 14:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I just read your contributions to this discussion of Attrition and find myself in complete agreement with your observations of WP activity. Brews ohare ( talk) 15:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Thanksgiving. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot ( talk) 14:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I've broached the idea of an article ban for you on Muhammad, here. This is very hard for me because I think, apart from Hans Adler, you're the person with whom I most agree on this issue. I certainly won't support any other sanctions based on your present or past behaviour, I have no doubt about your good intentions, or the rightness of your position here, but I can't engage on that talk page while all that bickering is going on. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 07:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Muhammad Images and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 10:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 15:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
[2]. My apologies if it comes across as snappish, the discussion sprawling across four sections of two noticeboards is maddening in it's collection of misunderstandings and misrepresentations. Not particularly surprising since the pure volume of text and unnecessary repitition is daunting. The page itself hasn't changed in substance since December 10th. At this point it would be quicker to simply ask people to read the sources, their use in the page and judge based on that. A very reasonable request since the total volume of text would be on the order of perhaps 500 words. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 20:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 11, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 14:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I nominated {{ redact}} for deletion here: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 December 22. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 03:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:South Asia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 16:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
If any editor states that their position has an unassailable consensus please just ignore them. They are only making themselves look more unreasonable by doing so - and replying over and over doesn't achieve anything beyond making you look unreasonable. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 18:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I am a listed party in the current ArbCom case, so I would be grateful if you could refactor the comment you added referring to me as a stalker. Stalking does exist on wikipedia: if you want to see an extreme example, take a look at the archives of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole. Thanks in advance, Mathsci ( talk) 06:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
You have been through admin contests before. Can you tell me where to post a request for clarification about sources. I am thinking that two old arbitration cases apply. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science [3] Principles: Prominence and Advocacy
And Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal [4] Principles: Neutral point of view, Basis for inclusion, Appropriate handling of epistemological status, no content; Finding of fact: Advocacy, and after looking around at who is still editing, Chilling effect
I am attracting a host of Skeptics in the Mediumship article who are rejecting the Journal of Scientific Exploration. They prefer a mediocre article using references from the likes of Carroll and Shermer. I tried to include Super-psi Hypothesis and psychopathology as criticisms of mediumship and they think I am just pushing psi. Tom Butler ( talk) 18:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gandzasar monastery. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 17:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Take a 24 hour break from the Muhammad images workshop. There is nothing crucial about the workshop, and it appears that you are letting yourself get too worked up about it. Everything will still be here in a day's time. NW ( Talk) 23:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for reinforcing my point. It's not limited to Wikipedia, as similar control-freak work has been done at various other internet collaboration projects, all in the name of "consensus". The term is worthy of support in theory, but in actuality it only works with a stable group of people, all of whom are involved in, or at least invited to, all discussions. Not at all like Wikipedia. So far Jimmy has acquiesced in all the steps down the primrose path. Admins are encouraged to run wild, with no consequences. Project rules, reached by an actual consensus of members, are freely ignored as being irrelevant to any article. "Discussions" are supposedly limited to those currently working on an article, with inviting others being a blocking or banning offence. In reality that often means two people, or two people plus the "friends" on one of the people, who contacts them by means outside of Wikipedia. "Consensus" may be proclaimed after only a day or two, when it's clear to any disinterested observer that no consensus has been reached at all. For something like deleting all instances of a template, it can be quite time-consuming and discouraging to replace them, but that's only one example. This is the sort of thing which kills collaboration projects, and I don't understand the determination to gloss over the obvious problems and pretend everything is working perfectly. Jimmy goes ballistic over Bell Pottinger, but only because of the people doing it. Others do the same thing, for who knows what reason, but he has no problem with that. Odd. 99.50.186.111 ( talk) 02:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
About intricate parsing templates. I want to use {{
Hex2dec}}
, and I know the hex string length is 6 value positions max: 0x0 -- 0xhhhhhh. Is it useful to specify the hex input, or even create some tailored template, to reduce resources needed? The input to expect are Unicode code points, which actually range to 0x10000 maximum (so the first position of six can be either 0 or 1). Zero prefixes can be present, all up to 6 hex characters total. Omitting the "0x" prefix may very well be required (by the template). -
DePiep (
talk) 15:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
{{
unichar/gc}}
to determine the General Category of a code point. In that set of templates I have already organised that the calculation is only done once for multiple uses (by using subtemplates). Thank you. -
DePiep (
talk) 19:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 17:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
If you could make your view on WP:BLPNAME known at Talk:Kobe_Bryant_sexual_assault_case#Name_Redacted, it would be beneficial to that discussion, since Wnt, who has disagreed with you on Jimmy Wales' talk page, has joined that Bryant talk page discussion as well. Nightscream ( talk) 17:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand And hello! Did you really just say that it's intellectually dishonest not to argue against images aren't offensive to anyone? You might want to think that point through a bit… Too many negatives for my limited recursive faculties. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 07:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 |
You may be interested in this. Peter jackson ( talk) 18:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
[1] My guess is 5 to 10% have that problem in the general population. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 15:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Allow me to put on my professional hat for just a moment. Everyone underestimates the complexity of the human psyche. We have certain biological traits that persist because they are effective traits for preserving the lives of individuals, and certain biological traits that persist because they are effective for advancing the interests of the social group, and layers of cognitive learning that balance, generalize, and integrate the raw material of those biological traits. What happens on wikipedia (on any internet site, actually), is that the balance is changed: we lose the immediacy of non-verbal feedback, so social needs become become less salient and the mind naturally emphasizes the needs of the self. In fact, the only place where there is any 'social' cohesion on wikipedia is around issues of legitimacy and scholarly authority, and so the breakdown we consistently see on project - individuals fighting to express their individual perspectives, cliques gathering around sources and policy statements with an almost religious dogmatism, intense ego involvement and the concomitant fight-to-the-death mentality - these are natural occurrences of minds that have lost track of part of their expected environment. The internet 'primitivizes' people, so that even people who (I assume) are perfectly reasonable and moral individuals in their daily lives can easily turn into ravening trolls. None of the idiotic disputes we have on project would be possible in the real world; sheer shame would prevent half of the arguments that are made from ever being made, and rationality (backed up by the need to have to look each other in the eye) would take care of the rest. But shame is a biological condition that inheres to social contexts, and rationality is a tool designed to suppress individual urges in favor of higher social purposes, and with the loss of a salient social environment neither applies. or better put, one has to put the effort in to assuming a non-visible social environment otherwise shame and rationality are rendered meaningless. Few people on project are aware that they need to make the assumption consciously, and fewer still are capable of doing it easily without the immediacy of social feedback.
Why do you think I inspire such intense anger from people I confront? It's because I consciously and deliberately invoke a social context that's otherwise absent on-project, and thus trigger all sorts of social responses that people have become unaccustomed to (with consequent emotional volatility). Effectively I smack right into any left-over, unresolved psychosocial issue ( See Erikson's stages 1-4) a given editor has; unresolved issues that are normally masked by higher social cognition in the real world, but which come out here because the salience of the social world has receded.
It's actually a very interesting occurrence, one which I would normally love to study. It's not one I particularly like living, however.
I'm just being clear about this: I don't think the problem is insoluble, but it's not something that's going to be immediately resolved by an appeal to rationality and common sense. somehow we need to build a new social context in which normal social controls exist, and then the situation will right itself. It's just a question of how that can be accomplished. -- Ludwigs2 16:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
... individuals fighting to express their individual perspectives, cliques gathering around sources and policy statements with an almost religious dogmatism, intense ego involvement and the concomitant fight-to-the-death mentality...
I envisage both teams working simultaneously on their statement, honing and revising in response to the others' statement as it evolves, until both teams are satisfied their case is as solid as it can be, at which point we take them to a widely advertised RfC. I'm inclined to at least begin the RfC as a simple unstructured discussion, and follow with... not sure; possibly another revision of the case for and against, possibly a !vote, as you might after a formal debate. I think this model may have merit and, since it was proposed by someone mostly arguing for the status quo, there's a chance editors on both sides of this "debate" may be willing to give it a try. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 06:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Once it's clear no new arguments are being put forward here by the same handful of editors for and against, then I'd like to see proponents and opponents of change compose a succinct statement of the case for and another of the case against, and lead the new RfC with those statements (as proposed here by AerobicFox).
Guys, with no snide remarks, and nothing intended as directed at either of you, I hope you don't mind if I make one little observation. There is a third category. There are people who are highly (or to some decent degree) against offending others, but understand that the only way to come as close as possible to creating an accurate encyclopedia means people (often including themselves) will be offended by something they find there. I've fought against removing things that offend me for that very reason. History has become a jumbled mess of half-nonsense over the centuries, with entire classes of historians trying to make the records more accurate and remove candy-coating and biases inserted because of compromises to prevent offense. I hate offending anyone. But I understand the need to not consider it in making an encyclopedia (which, btw, is vastly different from those few who seem to enjoy offending others). Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/ CN 03:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
That is indeed close - though I suspect, in the case of images of Muhammad, you will find the exact opposite effect. The number of Muslims affected here is very minor. The number of editors here who are aware of any such "controversy" here is very minor. As a for instance, many people have (erroneously) pointed out that we are offending billions of Muslims. Demographics are available for Wikipedia, and the true amount of Muslims who read Wikipedia is staggeringly low. Before you think I'm going in a certain direction with this, let me clarify. I'm not passing judgement on how many people are a valid number to offend or ignore. My point is (a) I agree with your wording but (b) I believe that, on Wikipedia, the results will not be what you suspect because of the small number of people who are of the Islamic faith or even know anything about it. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/ CN 19:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Would you mind concisely summarising what you think the image use problem is here? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 09:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. Thryduulf ( talk) 19:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
It's up to you, of course, but I thought you agreed to stay away from Talk:Muhammad/images. It looked to me like they were doing fine there without you or me. It looked like they were staggering towards a reasonable consensus. I fear that your engagement there may derail that process. I may be wrong. But would you consider stepping back for a while longer and seeing what happens? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 16:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot ( talk) 14:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
A while back you engaged with Martin Hogbin about the way WP arguments are handled. You made the statement that "The nice thing about consensus systems for Wikipedia is that it places power where it ought to be for an encyclopedia - on reason and informative sources." Of course, I am dragging this remark out of context. I just wonder if it actually expresses your opinion about how WP works, or instead, if it is a statement about how a consensus system is supposed to work in principle?
My personal experience is that the decision process on WP sometimes works when a few editors on a Talk page can come to terms over subject matter (a rare event). If that does not happen, and recourse is made to ANI or to ArbCom, or perhaps a strolling Administrator decides to settle matters themselves, then the result is entirely arbitrary and the actions taken will have no necessary relation to the problem or its resolution. Any connection to fact or reason becomes accidental. Brews ohare ( talk) 14:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd add to this a conjecture that a contributing factor to the malaise is that Administrators are presently immune to any consequences to their actions, except from other Administrators. This ingrown community that rules with impunity for life has no incentive to improve the content or conduct of affairs on WP. Their motivations are a subject for speculation. Brews ohare ( talk) 14:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I just read your contributions to this discussion of Attrition and find myself in complete agreement with your observations of WP activity. Brews ohare ( talk) 15:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Thanksgiving. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot ( talk) 14:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I've broached the idea of an article ban for you on Muhammad, here. This is very hard for me because I think, apart from Hans Adler, you're the person with whom I most agree on this issue. I certainly won't support any other sanctions based on your present or past behaviour, I have no doubt about your good intentions, or the rightness of your position here, but I can't engage on that talk page while all that bickering is going on. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 07:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Muhammad Images and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 10:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 15:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
[2]. My apologies if it comes across as snappish, the discussion sprawling across four sections of two noticeboards is maddening in it's collection of misunderstandings and misrepresentations. Not particularly surprising since the pure volume of text and unnecessary repitition is daunting. The page itself hasn't changed in substance since December 10th. At this point it would be quicker to simply ask people to read the sources, their use in the page and judge based on that. A very reasonable request since the total volume of text would be on the order of perhaps 500 words. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 20:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 11, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 14:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I nominated {{ redact}} for deletion here: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 December 22. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 03:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:South Asia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 16:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
If any editor states that their position has an unassailable consensus please just ignore them. They are only making themselves look more unreasonable by doing so - and replying over and over doesn't achieve anything beyond making you look unreasonable. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 18:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I am a listed party in the current ArbCom case, so I would be grateful if you could refactor the comment you added referring to me as a stalker. Stalking does exist on wikipedia: if you want to see an extreme example, take a look at the archives of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole. Thanks in advance, Mathsci ( talk) 06:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
You have been through admin contests before. Can you tell me where to post a request for clarification about sources. I am thinking that two old arbitration cases apply. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science [3] Principles: Prominence and Advocacy
And Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal [4] Principles: Neutral point of view, Basis for inclusion, Appropriate handling of epistemological status, no content; Finding of fact: Advocacy, and after looking around at who is still editing, Chilling effect
I am attracting a host of Skeptics in the Mediumship article who are rejecting the Journal of Scientific Exploration. They prefer a mediocre article using references from the likes of Carroll and Shermer. I tried to include Super-psi Hypothesis and psychopathology as criticisms of mediumship and they think I am just pushing psi. Tom Butler ( talk) 18:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gandzasar monastery. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 17:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Take a 24 hour break from the Muhammad images workshop. There is nothing crucial about the workshop, and it appears that you are letting yourself get too worked up about it. Everything will still be here in a day's time. NW ( Talk) 23:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for reinforcing my point. It's not limited to Wikipedia, as similar control-freak work has been done at various other internet collaboration projects, all in the name of "consensus". The term is worthy of support in theory, but in actuality it only works with a stable group of people, all of whom are involved in, or at least invited to, all discussions. Not at all like Wikipedia. So far Jimmy has acquiesced in all the steps down the primrose path. Admins are encouraged to run wild, with no consequences. Project rules, reached by an actual consensus of members, are freely ignored as being irrelevant to any article. "Discussions" are supposedly limited to those currently working on an article, with inviting others being a blocking or banning offence. In reality that often means two people, or two people plus the "friends" on one of the people, who contacts them by means outside of Wikipedia. "Consensus" may be proclaimed after only a day or two, when it's clear to any disinterested observer that no consensus has been reached at all. For something like deleting all instances of a template, it can be quite time-consuming and discouraging to replace them, but that's only one example. This is the sort of thing which kills collaboration projects, and I don't understand the determination to gloss over the obvious problems and pretend everything is working perfectly. Jimmy goes ballistic over Bell Pottinger, but only because of the people doing it. Others do the same thing, for who knows what reason, but he has no problem with that. Odd. 99.50.186.111 ( talk) 02:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
About intricate parsing templates. I want to use {{
Hex2dec}}
, and I know the hex string length is 6 value positions max: 0x0 -- 0xhhhhhh. Is it useful to specify the hex input, or even create some tailored template, to reduce resources needed? The input to expect are Unicode code points, which actually range to 0x10000 maximum (so the first position of six can be either 0 or 1). Zero prefixes can be present, all up to 6 hex characters total. Omitting the "0x" prefix may very well be required (by the template). -
DePiep (
talk) 15:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
{{
unichar/gc}}
to determine the General Category of a code point. In that set of templates I have already organised that the calculation is only done once for multiple uses (by using subtemplates). Thank you. -
DePiep (
talk) 19:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 17:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
If you could make your view on WP:BLPNAME known at Talk:Kobe_Bryant_sexual_assault_case#Name_Redacted, it would be beneficial to that discussion, since Wnt, who has disagreed with you on Jimmy Wales' talk page, has joined that Bryant talk page discussion as well. Nightscream ( talk) 17:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand And hello! Did you really just say that it's intellectually dishonest not to argue against images aren't offensive to anyone? You might want to think that point through a bit… Too many negatives for my limited recursive faculties. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 07:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)